eda_sys_window_open

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the function signature and a brief Chinese phrase '打开资源窗口' (open resource window). It does not disclose side effects, whether it navigates the current window, opens a new tab, requires authentication, or what happens on failure. For a tool that opens a window, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, essentially a signature and a one-line Chinese summary. It is concise but under-specified. The signature is front-loaded, which is good, but the Chinese phrase adds minimal value and the description lacks any additional context that would help an agent. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (opening a window with a URL and target), the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the return value or side effects. The description does not clarify what 'resource window' means, what URL formats are accepted, or how the target parameter behaves. An agent would likely need to guess or consult external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters: args (JSON array in official signature order) and windowId (target EDA window ID, optional). The description adds the function signature showing url and target parameters, which helps map to the args array, but it does not explain the ESYS_WindowOpenTarget enum values or the expected format of the url. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('open') and resource ('resource window'), and includes the function signature with parameters. It is clear that this tool opens a resource window with a URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eda_sys_window_open_ui, which also involves opening a window/UI, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. The sibling list includes eda_sys_window_open_ui and other window-related tools, but the description does not clarify the distinction, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.